Big Z Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) So you admit that LoFN=NONE and now you're just arguing about NONE's merits? Edited March 14, 2009 by Big Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tritonia Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 So you admit that LoFN=NONE and now you're just arguing about NONE's merits? I don't recall ever denying that LoFN was a derivative of NONE. NONE had failed to achieve the results we had hoped it would, and so LoFN was developed as our policies gradually changed. Again, I don't know what you think we were up to. I'd like to, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Do you also not deny the part where LoFN started a smear campaign against us and called for sanctions on one of our members? Because then we'd be on the same page and have everything settled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tritonia Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Do you also not deny the part where LoFN started a smear campaign against us and called for sanctions on one of our members? Because then we'd be on the same page and have everything settled. I wouldn't call it a smear campaign if the charges were perfectly valid. I recall a relatively sizable portion of the CN community including several non-LoFN members being less than pleased at the way you had handled a particular raid and I remember Conscience requesting sanctions of your members. I also remember him being attacked before, during, and after his anniversary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn1Love Posted March 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 NEAT was founded by me long before LoFN was even started. I started NEAT at the same time The Righteous Fist started. Seixas and Thizzland can attest to that (they are now in the International). They also can vouch that I started NEAT to form a direct democracy based alliance. We talked with LoFN just as we talked and/or had embassies with NPO, ODN, TRF,NV. We however did NOT participate in any illegal or conspiracy action with LoFN. We only conducted tech deals with OBR and PLUS. All "evidence" against us conspiring against any alliance was fabricated. If we were punished because we talked to someone that others disliked then so be it. You can decide if that is right or not, but I talked to someone from almost every aliance in this game, it doesn't mean I participate or condone their illegal activites. Especially if I don't even know what they are. NEAT was/is innocent of all crimes it was accused of. All evidence against us was fabricated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 And around the same old barn we go again. I remember Conscience requesting sanctions of your members. The most interesting bit, imo. So you're a bloc when convenient, but when you encourage outrage amongst your members and one actually tries to do something about it and it ends up blowing up in your face LoFN isn't a bloc? Nice logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn1Love Posted March 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 And around the same old barn we go again.The most interesting bit, imo. So you're a bloc when convenient, but when you encourage outrage amongst your members and one actually tries to do something about it and it ends up blowing up in your face LoFN isn't a bloc? Nice logic. Once again, you said "you're". Eric was a member of NEAT, not LoFN. We were two competely different alliances. NEAT was started long before LoFN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tritonia Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 So you're a bloc when convenient No, LoFN was not a formal bloc, nor was it a formal alliance. It wasn't like Superfriends or WUT, or even NpO or GATO. It was a networking forum. There was no particular pledges of defense or support. As far as I can tell, the closest thing to it and NONE were the early days of Vox's reformation, except Vox more directly rallied against the powers that be rather than for independence. but when you encourage outrage amongst your members LoFN had several members that were, in my opinion, rather brash. LoFN never deliberately organized any sort of forum raid targeted at GOD. Several people were upset with what GOD did and voiced that opinion. Conscience may have made a bad choice, but that was all his call, not any sort of collective will of LoFN. and one actually tries to do something about it and it ends up blowing up in your face LoFN isn't a bloc?Nice logic. What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) No, LoFN was not a formal bloc, nor was it a formal alliance. It wasn't like Superfriends or WUT, or even NpO or GATO. It was a networking forum. There was no particular pledges of defense or support. As far as I can tell, the closest thing to it and NONE were the early days of Vox's reformation, except Vox more directly rallied against the powers that be rather than for independence.LoFN had several members that were, in my opinion, rather brash. LoFN never deliberately organized any sort of forum raid targeted at GOD. Several people were upset with what GOD did and voiced that opinion. Conscience may have made a bad choice, but that was all his call, not any sort of collective will of LoFN. What? For the first bit, you should know by now that formality really doesn't mean all that much. You acted as a bloc, and were treated as such. De facto means a lot more than de jure, as it's your actions that show your intent. Not your words. Edit : Just look at the big flap over the Writ de Credo a bit ago. OBR's legal maneuvering in that treaty meant little, since the fact of the matter is that no one would have allowed that to happen. Or are you saying that if we just went after The Corps that the other alliances wouldn't have intervened? It seems kind of low to abandon friends like that, but if you were willing to... For the last bit, it just confused me. It seemed like you were trying to shove all of the blame off onto Conscience. Which I suppose ties into the previous point : Would you really have abandoned them? Or would you have stuck by your compatriots? Edited March 14, 2009 by Aurion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tritonia Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 For the first bit, you should know by now that formality really doesn't mean all that much. You acted as a bloc, and were treated as such. De facto means a lot more than de jure, as it's your actions that show your intent. Not your words. Then perhaps I'm not sure what "acting as a bloc" actually means. When did LoFN act as a bloc? Other than when every member of it was declared upon, in which case it really didn't matter because everyone was in the same boat anyway. Or are you saying that if we just went after The Corps that the other alliances wouldn't have intervened? It seems kind of low to abandon friends like that, but if you were willing to... Some would have, some wouldn't have. Nobody would have had any obligation to help The Corps other than because they felt like taking a stand with them. But by the same token, Coscience's actions was not reflective of The Corps as a whole. He understood that. Which is why he left and let your allies attack him to prevent his comrades from suffering for his actions. Much more courageous on his part. For the last bit, it just confused me. It seemed like you were trying to shove all of the blame off onto Conscience. Which I suppose ties into the previous point : Would you really have abandoned them? Or would you have stuck by your compatriots? It's confusing because you're attempting to apply conventional standards of conduct to a group that didn't operate conventionally. The blame was on Conscience because it was Conscience's call as an independent leader of a nation to ask for the sanction of your raiders. It wasn't the responsibility of The Corps. It wasn't the responsibility of anybody else in LoFN. He was responsible for himself. All of us were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn1Love Posted March 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 What happened with Conscience or The Corps doesn't even matter because NEAT had nothing to do with either situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) I don't recall ever denying that LoFN was a derivative of NONE. NONE had failed to achieve the results we had hoped it would, and so LoFN was developed as our policies gradually changed. Again, I don't know what you think we were up to. I'd like to, though. I'm sure that encouraging and using spy attacks on the NPO was one of the many great LoFN policies that was indicative of a peaceful, better NONE right? Edited March 14, 2009 by Big Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craven Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes. Voltaire Why argue such a subject? Let us not dwell in the past any longer. The past cannot be changed and the most we can do is learn from it and prepare for the future. You all have your own opinions on the matter and I believe it is quite clear you're not going to get the opposite side to agree with you. In other words this arguement is a waste of time. I respect those that stand up for what they believe in, but surely private channels would be more appropriate. Edited March 14, 2009 by Craven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tritonia Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 In other words this arguement is a waste of time. I disagree. I respect those that stand of for what they believe in, but surely private channels would be more appropriate. I agree. To PMs then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ephriam Grey Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) I disagree.I agree. To PMs then! I'd have thought you people would've learned from me that private channels are -not- FTW. Example: Jerdge, who would've been exonerated, and I screwed, if he had -not- gone into private channels. Sorry to say this, NEAT, but you're one of the few groups I don't regret my treatment of. We checked with your allies before hand - I don't recall a treaty with ODN ever existing, you seemed to keep your trump cards close to your chest at the time. We had harder evidence on NEAT than any other group, though that's not really saying much. At the time, in my heart of hearts, I was 100% satisfied that I wasn't about to shoot an alliance that was innocent. (Note that I am admittedly less satisfied with it these days. Ah, experience). And we gave you guys a pretty fair peace settlement. Some of you choose not to participate in that. I really don't want to get into the details of this, but a certain number of you later broke the agreement, and reformed NEAT, in secret, and signed a secret protectorate with TRF, which you denied, and almost got TRF killed - I was able to keep that incident mostly under wraps from the rest of the coalition (Ephie deception was widely used with GOD), but if I hadn't, TRF and NEAT would've probably been rolled again. Hell, the OBR might've been too, due to their promise to ensure that you guys followed your terms. In talks with cheezy, we came to the understanding that the oath given to myself and my alliance would be acceptable among NEAT. Clearly, it wasn't. But, eh, it's all in the past. EDIT: Protip - you guys need better security protocols. I've had an account on your forums for months, and you guys talk about your rerolls in public areas. Someone like, say..... Xiphosis could totally abuse that. SECOND EDIT: Seriously, guys. You're talking about restarting NEAT in a public forum with a timeline based on MP development. GOD didn't just disappear. Edited March 14, 2009 by Ephriam Grey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) (Ephie deception was widely used with GOD) I'm not surprised at all. It's not as though that behavior wasn't consistently your style. Luckily, we didn't care much for you anyway and the only reason you were tolerated was because VE liked you, nothing more. Protip - you guys need better security protocols. I've had an account on your forums for months, and you guys talk about your rerolls in public areas. Someone like, say..... Xiphosis could totally abuse that. That's interesting information and certainly indicative of NEAT's less than innocent persona behind closed doors. Regardless, GOD policy is that each IC character is different and should any former NEAT reroll, as long as they don't bring past grudges to the table, I see no problem with them forming a new alliance, it can even be based off the former remnants of NEAT for all I care, as long the NEAT name is not specifically used. SECOND EDIT:Seriously, guys. You're talking about restarting NEAT in a public forum with a timeline based on MP development. GOD didn't just disappear. As long as they're willing to keep past grudges limited to past IC characters in each reroll, I see no problem with them doing whatever they want with their new personas. Granted, I'm not particularly confident in the abilities of many players to separate IC from OOC but nonetheless, the opportunity to do so will be afforded to them, like all others. If they do choose to enact old grudge in new characters then, obviously, consequences will ensue but ultimately it's their choice on whether or not to accept this clean slate. Edited March 14, 2009 by Big Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burn1Love Posted March 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 I have forgiven all parties and hold no grudges. NEAT can reform if it wants. No crimes have been commited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Ulji Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 As long as they're willing to keep past grudges limited to past IC characters in each reroll, I see no problem with them doing whatever they want with their new personas. Granted, I'm not particularly confident in the abilities of many players to separate IC from OOC but nonetheless, the opportunity to do so will be afforded to them, like all others. If they do choose to enact old grudge in new characters then, obviously, consequences will ensue but ultimately it's their choice on whether or not to accept this clean slate. What he said. Guys we really need to all move on. Seriously, guys. You're talking about restarting NEAT in a public forum with a timeline based on MP development. GOD didn't just disappear. I want to believe the GOD and NEAT have moved on, BigZ call me on this if I'm wrong here. Why should we hide ourselves or our plans? Isn't this what got everyone all up in arms in the first place? "Oooohhhh secret Walford organization!!!" Yes we would like to restart NEAT and yes a few of us consider the Gramlins a nice model alliance (hence the idea behind nukes), and no we're still not a none splinter cell and no, Walford hasn't re-rolled and taken his place among us. And yes I know, direct democracy is pure fail. You are all welcome to spy on us, go ahead register at the forums (except for you FAN, the one thing we DO NOT want is become the next source of "Bad JuJu", no hate for you guys, but that whole thing was just poor). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 I want to believe the GOD and NEAT have moved on, BigZ call me on this if I'm wrong here. Why should we hide ourselves or our plans? Isn't this what got everyone all up in arms in the first place? "Oooohhhh secret Walford organization!!!" Yes we would like to restart NEAT and yes a few of us consider the Gramlins a nice model alliance (hence the idea behind nukes), and no we're still not a none splinter cell and no, Walford hasn't re-rolled and taken his place among us. And yes I know, direct democracy is pure fail. You are all welcome to spy on us, go ahead register at the forums (except for you FAN, the one thing we DO NOT want is become the next source of "Bad JuJu", no hate for you guys, but that whole thing was just poor). You're completely right. We've moved on from the issue and as long as the new alliance holds no ill will towards us and any rerolls don't carry over grudges from past IC characters, I'm perfectly fine with it. We've always considered the IC/OOC boundary precious and as long as the rerolls adhere to this boundary, as I stated earlier, I have no problem with an alliance similar to that of NEAT reforming. Each new IC character is a blank slate and someone different, assuming of course they can separate past "lives". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Ulji Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 You're completely right. We've moved on from the issue and as long as the new alliance holds no ill will towards us and any rerolls don't carry over grudges from past IC characters, I'm perfectly fine with it. We've always considered the IC/OOC boundary precious and as long as the rerolls adhere to this boundary, as I stated earlier, I have no problem with an alliance similar to that of NEAT reforming. Each new IC character is a blank slate and someone different, assuming of course they can separate past "lives". BigZ, I actually included in this group old-NEATers who wish to return in addition to new members and re-rolls. Those who return are returning under the condition that they have "moved on". Do you have issue with this? I don't seem to recall anything in our peace terms which forbade this. (Please no-one give me "private channels for the win" ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 BigZ, I actually included in this group old-NEATers who wish to return in addition to new members and re-rolls. Those who return are returning under the condition that they have "moved on". Do you have issue with this? I don't seem to recall anything in our peace terms which forbade this.(Please no-one give me "private channels for the win" ) I don't really have issue with this but their actions would speak louder than their words. If they've truly moved on, I can foresee no problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheezy Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) I see no problem with them forming a new alliance, it can even be based off the former remnants of NEAT for all I care, as long the NEAT name is not specifically used. As long as the name NEAT isnt used...But in the peace agreements said we were aloud to return to NEAT after the 1 month in blackwater...So how comes no using NEAT name? Correct me if im wrong but Im sure that we were aloud out NEAT AA back, Im sure we all made sure of that. And a few posts back, cant remember who, said that NEAT had reformed before...when did this happen? Who reformed it and when lol... More to the point, NEAT simply wants to get on with itself, providing the same love and equality to all our members. Heres a quote by B1L: I want peace and neutrality with all. I just want to be with you all in peace. And for those who are interested in NEAT, former enamys and allies. Feel free to PM me questions or if you'd like to get more involved also PM me. Edited March 14, 2009 by cheezy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tritonia Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 And a few posts back, cant remember who, said that NEAT had reformed before...when did this happen? Who reformed it and when lol... Well, B1L never left, and NEAT was sort of... reinvented at one point. Didn't get very far, IIRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheezy Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Well, B1L never left, and NEAT was sort of... reinvented at one point. Didn't get very far, IIRC. As said tho, that was a moment of anger by B1L, he was understandably annoyed at all the happenings. It didnt take off and the nations tht remained expired, so all is kool now right? Besides, NEAT is run by the majority, and the majority accepted peace, thus NEAT officially accepted peace, those few who didnt accept technically did not represent NEAT. Anyhow, more to the point, nobody seems to want to ponder over the past (baring a few people who wernt even involved in the first place), so lets just keep on trucking to a better digeria :wub: . Share the love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ephriam Grey Posted March 14, 2009 Report Share Posted March 14, 2009 Best of luck, then. Is Cheezy in charge of it? I like Cheezy, competent leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.